*New Investigation* Gavin Newsom’s Pork-Barrel Budget: How Power Protects Itself in Sacramento

⏰ 7 min read

Pork In The Pig Pen

California’s new budget hides hundreds of millions in earmarks, even as the state claimed it was cutting back. The absurdity of it is almost easier to understand visually than in text: picture Gavin Newsom standing in a mud pit, smiling for the cameras, surrounded by plump, well-fed pigs — each one tagged with the name of a favored local project. It would almost be funny if it weren’t real. But as the latest CalMatters investigation makes clear, this isn’t satire. It’s the governing model.

An Explosive CalMatters Investigation — And a Warning About Power

This isn’t an accounting footnote — this is the story. As first reported by CalMatters journalist Ryan Sabalow, the latest state budget hides hundreds of millions in targeted earmarks. Sabalow’s reporting pulls the curtain back on how Democratic supermajorities operate when no one is watching. When the same party controls the purse, the rules, and the vote count, the incentives are no longer aligned with taxpayers — they’re aligned with the political class. In Sacramento, pork-barrel spending isn’t an exception — it’s the operating model. And that should unsettle every Californian.

The Pork Is in the Budget Right Now

Sabalow identified nearly 100 district-specific earmarks quietly inserted into a single budget bill, which passed, totaling roughly $415 million in taxpayer dollars. (The secrecy of the whole budget process itself could be the subject of a slew of columns.) At the same time, Democratic leadership insisted it was making “difficult” cuts to close a $12 billion deficit. The public was informed that there was no alternative but to freeze hiring, pause healthcare benefits, withhold firefighter pay increases, tap the rainy-day fund, and borrow at high interest rates to cover essential programs. At the same time, Democratic leaders allocated funds for politically advantageous neighborhood projects, nonprofit subsidies, and photo-op ribbon cuttings. This wasn’t about managing scarcity. It was about shielding political projects while everyone else was told to tighten their belts. The message was unmistakable: the pain in this budget year was for ordinary Californians, not for the politicians who carved off pieces of pork for their well-connected special interest friends.

What Sacramento Hoped You Wouldn’t See

These earmarks weren’t debated openly or justified publicly but rushed through in a budget bill that suffered no meaningful discussion. Among the most notable examples is the $5 million allocated to support a historic LGBTQ+ event venue in San Francisco. An additional $2.5 million was allocated to a private day school in Southern California. And $250,000 went to a private farm-animal sanctuary on the North Coast.

Meanwhile, approximately $250 million appears to have been diverted from Proposition 4 — the $10 billion climate bond voters approved, believing it would support broad statewide environmental investment, rather than individualized political favor-trading.

At the same time, Senate President pro tem Mike McGuire’s district appears to have received more than two dozen separate earmarks totaling over $100 million. That didn’t happen by accident. It reflects the internal reward system of Democratic caucus power — senior Democrats protect and advance themselves and other Democrats, using taxpayer dollars as the currency. This is not neutral budgeting. This is a political reward.

For This Unsavery Spending, Secrecy Is The Norm

No one votes against a bill that makes special interests smile, donors happy, and allows they to put out a local district press release. The price of loyalty is paid in public dollars — and the public rarely sees the transaction.

This system only functions because Democratic leadership structured it to avoid scrutiny. The bills are often enormous, spanning hundreds of pages, making it nearly impossible to conduct a meaningful review. Amendments can be introduced at the last moment, before watchdogs, the press, or citizens have time to react. Beneficiary organizations may be listed without explanation, leaving no immediate indication of who requested the funding or why. And votes are frequently scheduled before outside oversight can catch up. If a reporter has to spend days reverse-engineering legislative text to figure out where public money went, the public was not meant to see it. That should alarm everyone.

Why This Violates Basic Good-Government Principles

A responsible budgeting system prioritizes core expenses first, then evaluates new proposals openly and on their merits. Pork does the opposite. It prioritizes politically advantageous projects over those that are genuinely needed, meritorious, or beneficial to the state. And when funds that voters earmarked for environmental resilience are instead directed to local political branding, campaign photography, and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, trust is replaced with cynicism. California does not lack revenue. It lacks restraint. And increasingly, it lacks candor.

Newsom’s Role and the National Angle

Gavin Newsom has not merely presided over this system — he has strengthened and normalized it, shaping the mud itself. By approving budgets structured around district-specific earmarks and opaque allocations, Newsom ensures that lawmakers have a personal stake in the success of the broader spending package. And it works because Democratic legislators know their political futures are tied to leadership favor, not public deliberation or merit-based budgeting.

So, Does It Matter?

Of course, this matters greatly. I want to begin by praising CalMatters for its investigative journalism and the technical work that makes it possible.

The consequences are not theoretical. Senate President pro tem Mike McGuire, whose district received one of the most significant clusters of these earmarks, also happens to have drawn himself a brand-new, overwhelmingly safe Democratic congressional seat that he’s read to occupy. We paid for his campaign story before he even announced it.

If Americans think federal spending is already reckless, they should look west. California is the training ground for this model — the mud pit where public money and political loyalty intersect. Under a President Newsom, the country would not be watching from afar. We would be standing in it.

As Lord Acton warned in 1887, power tends to corrupt — and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Below the Paywall Today: Two Extra Treats for Our Paid Readers

If you’re a paid subscriber — or thinking about becoming one — two bonus items are waiting below. First, the other cartoon image came in a close second for today’s column. And second, a cleaned-up list of the pork earmarks — so you can see how well-connected special interests benefited, even as the public was told the state didn’t have enough money for basic services.

So, Does It Matter? Published on a daily rhythm — two pieces each weekday, one each weekend day, and breaking analysis when the moment calls for it. That pace and independence exist because of paid subscribers. If you value this work, upgrading unlocks nearly 40% of it — and makes the work itself possible...